Hard News: So far from trivial
1076 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 39 40 41 42 43 44 Newer→ Last
-
WH,
Why can't these people bring themselves to condemn an act of violence against a woman lying on the floor?
Endless repetition is not going to turn that into a valid criticism. Stop circling the bandwagons.
At some point the denunciation of celebrity offending becomes self-gratification, conjecture and trial by media. I would suggest that point has been reached.
-
I see no ones interested in the other gossip re the valentines day visit 2 weeks later. that was from an unnamed source, printed in a newspaper, so it must be true.
Even if it is true, it doesn't make the assault any less horrible.
I see what they're trying to do by leaking this information: it's pretty transparently an attempt to say that the assault wasn't actually that bad, because she was still all lovey-dovey at him on Valentine's Day. Of course, abused people often continue unhealthy contact with their abusers even after serious assaults have taken place. So, you know, shrug. They were both clearly in a fucked-up mental place.
-
As far as I'm concerned, Raybon JKan still has quite a long way to go to redeem himself after his column(s) around the time of the Rickards/Schollum pack-rape stuff.
The tone of his writing around the time of those verdicts was along the lines of "oh, isn't this a lot of fuss about nothing very important. What an over-reaction. Rape isn't all that bad. I can certainly squeeze a couple of hundred jokey words out about this."
So he's still got quite some way to go, as far as I'm concerned.
A good start, though.
-
Hi all -- you may notice I've deleted several posts making a certain speculation about Veitch. Perhaps you could stay off that. It's one thing to comment on news stories, another to make stuff up.
-
double plus, good big bro! :)
-
Even if it is true, it doesn't make the assault any less horrible.
who said anything about less horrible, I said spicy.
also see WH post above yours. you can't see my original post cos apparently i said something controversial although I was merely commenting on a legitimate newspaper article from our favourite unnamed sauce (source) which inferred what I said, unlike the P habit comments which I'm pretty sure I haven't seen unnamed source mention. -
Thanks, Julie. I like the way your commenter Anna McM put it
Wellington owes Dunedin for us letting her go up there. There were plots to prevent y'know.
-
Endless repetition is not going to turn that into a valid criticism.
It's already a "valid" criticism, WH - is just the acknowledgement of that from some that is still lacking. Not OK means Not OK. You're the one who isn't getting that.
-
Not OK means Not OK. You're the one who isn't getting that.
It's kind of like the unpatriotic argument though. if you're american you can discuss issues of american politics without being unpatriotic but that doesn't stop people from throwing a "you hate america" into a discussion in an attempt to divert it. I've said many many comments to the effect of its not ok, clearly stating my position and even why (personal experience) , but that doesn't stop someone calling heretic every time I or anyone else discuss a point varying from the "veitch is monster" angle. if we accept that as read then you can discuss the whole celebrity, media, news, sources, truth, manipulation angles, wider implications of violence in nz, how we like to pigeon hole issues, let of steam and forget them etc. if not then you can stick to repetition as mentioned by WH.
-
Read the Raybon Kan piece, Rob - does a great job of unpacking what Veitch has said so far and outlines how far away from taking responsibility it is. Until we hear him clearly acknowledge that he harmed her, it's all just smoke. I'm happy to leave it to a court process (agree with you on that now that we know there may be one), but there is well-funded deliberate spin going on in the meantime.
Said many times upthread so not going to repeat the detail, but denial is common for perpetrators of family violence, so please don't go acting all surprised when people react to hearing the same arguments out of your mouth.
-
if you're american you can discuss issues of american politics without being unpatriotic but that doesn't stop people from throwing a "you hate america" into a discussion in an attempt to divert it.
That comparison is not at all apt. I really resent this lameassed (sorry Jackie!) implication you keep making that you're so nuanced and reasonable and the rest of us are just baying jackals, when we spend all this time discussing these things at length, with qualifications, and nuance, and avoidance of emotive language, and so on and so on ad freaking nauseam. You know what? If you think that we're doing the 'why do you hate America?' thing, because we're such incapable-of-complexity witch-hunting morons, you can just... [REDACTED]. Because you're totally, totally wrong.
-
Yeah I haven't seen much "Veitch is a monster" angling going on. I've seen a lot of concern that he isn't actually taking responsibility for what he's done, and there are a lot of people like Holmes helping him with maintaining that position. I'm not sure how calling Veitch on that, and in particular on the bits of his statements to the media that don't match up with what is slowly congealing into a likely scenario of what happened.
Ultimately it's to his own detriment - a key part of rehabilitation is understanding what you did, taking responsibility for it, and learning about the bits of you that need to change so you don't do it again. It's been said before, here and elsewhere, but Robbery you seem to keep missing the bit where the commenters who are appalled at Veitch's lack of sincere remorse point that out (showing they do believe in redemption).
As for Wellington owing Dunedin for Anna, I agree Kyle. And there goes The Hand Mirror's token South Islander ;-)
-
I've seen a lot of concern that he isn't actually taking responsibility for what he's done,
Heh, even Diana Wichtel took him to task on this count in her Listener TV review.
-
Until we hear him clearly acknowledge that he harmed her, it's all just smoke.
that's one good point
I'm happy to leave it to a court process (agree with you on that now that we know there may be one), but there is well-funded deliberate spin going on in the meantime.
that's 2 good points,
Said many times upthread so not going to repeat the detail, but denial is common for perpetrators of family violence,
so what are you saying here, I'm hurting people in my family? I'm violent? I participate in family violence? my loving partner and siblings will be interested to hear that.
so please don't go acting all surprised when people react to hearing the same arguments out of your mouth.
well its not just me, and I've forwarded lots of different arguments, none of which have vindicated veitch. I think that's the point WH made. We can take it as read that violence in society is not something anyone wants, if only for the selfish reason that we don't want it turned on us.
-
but Robbery you seem to keep missing the bit where the commenters who are appalled at Veitch's lack of sincere remorse point that out (showing they do believe in redemption).
no I'm reading that, but i think veitch is the least interesting part of the incident. he's a sports reader who had his statement written for him by lawyers and a crusty old media man. his actual words are irrelevant in a way. its not like he's actually saying any of them, they appear to be scripted.
That they are scripted is an interesting bit, and we're not going to get to see how sorry he is until all of that stops, which is why I don't dwell on it, and won't until that dust has settled. he's still a talking head at this stage.
-
and so on and so on ad freaking nauseam.
:) what'd I say?
come on D, can't we all just get along, lets be friends.to be honest I wasn't even thinking of you. I was chatting with sasha, in my mind you're the wedding dress thread
ps you should break up your posts into multiple points over consecutive posts. the count goes on individual posts not length. 2000 here we come.
continue
-
Rob, you have split a complete sentence into two parts and then reacted to each part seperately. Go and read it again, and stop wasting my time.
-
Veitch is the "least interesting part of the incident"? WTF? I'm sorry, I just don't get that at all.
-
Veitch is the "least interesting part of the incident"? WTF? I'm sorry, I just don't get that at all.
in that the individual that is tony veitch alone is a small part of the bigger picture.
that would be celebrity, media, the wider context of violence in new zealand that doesn't have a celebrity at its focus,That an incident of domestic violence happened in new zealand isn't unusual, we have a lot of it most of which sadly isn't considered news worth or worth the general public's time to contemplate.
what is unusual is it was a celebrity,
the public reaction to that,
the media's response to it,
what is printed as news,
etc etc.what we as a society do after the veitch incident dies down will be more telling. I'm betting not much, as whatever veitch "bought to justice" will be it will most likely be seen as job well done, we've solved domestic violence, carry on.
I'm saying this slightly desentisied by watching the harrowing taxi to the dark side doco re the institutionalised violence that lead to torture and murder in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-
you have split a complete sentence into two parts
which bit?
-
WH,
Not OK means Not OK. You're the one who isn't getting that.
One of us is confused about who is not getting what.
-
WHatever.
-
and stop wasting my time.
but you've obviously got time on your hands, I thought I was doing you a favour, helping you pass the time.
and reading your one sentence in its whole it could easily be read to mean exactly what I said in 2 parts.
but denial is common for perpetrators of family violence, so please don't go acting all surprised when people react to hearing the same arguments out of your mouth.
ie what comes out of my mouth sounds like what comes out of the mouths of perpetrators of family violence.
I also asked you to clarify what you meant because it was ambiguous and I certainly wouldn't want to misrepresent your meaning, which is why I started my sentence with "so what are you saying here"?
-
I was talking to some one who works for a counselling phoneline today and she said they've had heaps of calls from women for whom this Vietch thing has been very "triggering". People are deeply affected when this stuff is in the news but you don't hear from them on forums like this so much. Personally I am pleased a formal complaint has been made. I hope justice takes its course but I'm not holding my breath
-
I was talking to some one who works for a counselling phoneline today and she said they've had heaps of calls from women for whom this Vietch thing has been very "triggering". People are deeply affected when this stuff is in the news but you don't hear from them on forums like this so much.
Actually, if you look back (and I really don't expect you to) there has been a bit of "triggering" here too. I'm very aware that this thread has carried an emotional charge that most don't.
Personally I am pleased a formal complaint has been made. I hope justice takes its course but I'm not holding my breath
Just it going to court passes the "justice takes its course" for me.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.